Intel flips over Microcode Update benchmarking stance

[HEXUS]

Earlier in the week it introduced a clause forbidding sharing tests. Now it has relented.

Read more.

[Tabbykatze]

Hmm...yeah, no Intel. Those microcode updates should be benched to reflect the true performance. I have a feeling they might be stickled by this change.

Edit: ah, i re-read and they doubled back. I wonder if they were trying to introduce and hope no one would bite back.

[darcotech]

They were probably hoping no one will found that one and later when benchmarks comes, scare them with.
Intel = fishy ....becoming normal...not good

[philehidiot]

Bad Intel. Now, off you jolly well.....go.

That's disgusting behaviour and they should not need complaints (which are by their nature more damaging because people see you're suppressing the data, people will assume the worst and those for whom this doesn't represent a problem for their specific workloads will still assume the worst) to make them realise this is wrong. This was not a decision made by one person, this will have come down from the top with input from marketing, R&D, legal and likely the executive board.

If they just accepted that their market is one of intelligent and educated people who will judge your products based on objective criteria (as well as punish behaviour like this which treats them like idiots to be manipulated) and came out with this honestly then they would almost certainly have a better reception. Whilst this isn't a massive threat to life, I always like to refer back to Samsung's Note 7 recall. They admitted fault, did the recall, investigated, released the results of the investigation so the world could learn from it and then, even when they could have easily blamed the battery supplier, they took full responsibility as they specced the batteries.

Faults will occur in all manufactured products. Issues will be found. Honesty and integrity will go a lot further than attempts to legally suppress the information a consumer needs to make an objective choice and also a decision on whether to prioritise workload or security. Or decide to perhaps not patch and ensure there is vulnerability mitigation at a different level in the system. There's no point in guaranteeing destroying your business because you lose 30% output if you can take a risk, not patch and secure the system elsewhere. Not allowing this information to be shared means people have to apply the patch and bench for themselves. Which is a PITA when Intel could just do the decent thing.

[peterb]

Yes, yet another blow to Intel's corporate integrity. (Although as that integrity is pretty small, landing any blow requires a microscope)

[pp05]

That is just silly on Intel's part.

[nobodyspecial]

ruh roh...Wondering how bad my new 8700k will really end up in the next few months. AMD will be getting my next purchase at 7nm to replace my new chip anyway. I won't be waiting until 2020 for a desktop chip from Intel with mitigations and a die shrink. AMD may just get 2 cpu purchases from my family in the next year (to fix the TWO main desktops used that have intel problems). Also, maybe a 7nm APU in the future for HTPC boxes as I'm building 2 right now out of old crap, but will replace board/cpu/mem as 7nm hits. Intel is OUT of both of those most likely for multiple reasons (again, once AMD hits 7nm). I'm uninterested in anything that isn't 7nm after my 8700k chip given that Intel is so far away with 10nm for 8700k replacements (they might miss xmas 2019? back to school also probably for most).

Really bad watching Intel go down. Yes I see the Q reports (great right now), but the plunge is coming as they blew the fabs by wasting 4B a year for 3-4 years (instead of dedicating it to FABS!) and should have bought NVDA when they were under $12 a share (before the explosion that is). But since they couldn't get over their ego, they passed and missed OWNING the whole ARM race. Imagine 4-5yrs ago purchasing NV, and spitting out THEIR GPU/SOCs on Intel's best process at the time vs. everyone else. NV's socs would have been in a TON of devices & no NV modem issues either, as Intel owns great tech here but NV's modem purchase might have helped here anyway with an intel process behind it (Either way, multiple modem teams working here then, pick the good one and run with it). Too bad, empty fab sitting down the road in AZ for years now as Intel failed to fight ARM correctly. IE if you can't beat them, BUY THEM, JOIN THEM, put them out of business with their own tech on YOUR process. Then decide if ARM or x86 is better, or just merge into a chip with both etc.

Massively different story if Intel had bought NVDA and could have gotten away with it as you could argue GPU's are everywhere now, so even buying NV wouldn't matter (far more gpus sold by OTHERS on OTHER crap) and AMD still ships a LOT of gpus when including apus/socs. Massive Intel mistakes in the last 5yrs. Krzanich affair might have been a gift for Intel, as he has presided over the fabs going down and well, AMD coming back without a real response so far (well, Q1 2020 mass production?...LOL). An 8 core chip should have been ready and waiting ages ago.

Benchmark the heck out of these patches please, games & apps both need a thrashing. Basically it's a whole new review to me at this point with a massive interest thrown at finding WHERE you don't get what you pay for now. I mean if you're taking 30% hits in some cases, I want either a refund, a $100 check (rebate if desired for future chip purchase), or something worth 1/3 of my performance being taken from a $350 CPU. It didn't say on the box, "BTW expect a 30% drop in perf soon when we FIX IT". I didn't see anything on the box about security flaws in the chip I was buying either (yeah, I knew they existed, but you can only wait so long to buy). The price on all Intel chips should drop 15-30% depending on how bad this crap really gets after benchmarks are done. They are selling fraud chips IMHO at this point if not having info about these security issues FRONT AND CENTER on the boxes.